[Beerinkol]

redcake, you should read before you talk. If you checked, you would have seen the copy was from the Zombie website.

As to what his role will be in his capacity as adviser, here's the information.

http://2020science.org/2008/12/18/jo...ience-advisor/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/bl...rmu-2008-12-21
Dec 21, 2008 12:38 PM in Society & Policy | 1 comments | Post a comment
Obama names Holdren, Lubchenco, Varmus and Lander to science posts

http://www.harvardscience.harvard.ed...cience-advisor
(More on Holdren)

redcake,
I think you need to get your eyes checked. You keep seeing things that aren't there, words that haven't been written. And if your eyes are just fine, you must stop those voices in your head telling you what to write. There is a major disconnect between you and reality.

[LottiFurmann]

Of course, but this would be like interviewing Clarence Thomas about Dred Scott prior to a hearing over another Black Justice. The context merits it.

Chief Justices do write opinions... and even memoirs, while serving.
The idea isn't to have an opinion, it's to have a judicial one, which arrives at a fair ruling without bias, or prejudice. I'd think it would be best for our Justices to cut themselves off from these types of interviews where they're editorializing though. I don't think she offers any insight into how she interprets law, but we now know she recognizes a woman's right to chose as a human, and equality right, which could not be repealed without issue from States where abortion was previously legal. That's an awareness of the ramifications her rulings may have, and I'm not sure that's acceptable.
That said, we do talk about liberal, or conservative judges, which means we expect a level of unfairness.

[Beerinkol]

Justice Ginsburg is correct. Unwanted children are more likely to become criminals. The statistics don't lie.

Besides, I don't think the gov't has any right to tell a woman what to do with her body. I thought you were for less gov't control Dorothy?

[PhillipHer]

Except that Ginsburg wasn't on the court when Roe was decided. She was appointed 20 years later.

[Peptobismol]

Most of the articles are condemning her based on a preconceived argument complete with set terminology being imposed on her quote. I'm not defending her, I just don't see her making the statement you wish she was making...

...and per usual you comb through the news hunting and pecking for that which might validate you. Your added link doesn't validate anything you're saying it just clutters the topic adding disjointed information to a tangent you've yet to prove has links.

So again, more unfounded claims, and more spam from Dorothy via her Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

What's really gross though is you point to our Jewishness as reason to preach, and chastise us about this issue.